AI Is Transforming Departments—Including HR

Three Types of Pay Transparency Are Changing the Game

By Daniel Butcher

While there isn’t a nationwide pay-transparency law in the United States—at least not yet—10 states, several cities, and even one county (Westchester, New York) have such regulations. That means organizations may need to adjust how they communicate about pay depending on where they’re based and where they operate.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said one type of transparency is letting employees freely talk about their pay with one another. That’s been protected by U.S. federal law since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935.

“Most employees don’t know that they have the right to talk about their pay with other employees—that’s part of the NLRA. Still, companies discourage it, and in fact, some companies go too far in discouraging it so that they’re actually breaking the law,” Bamberger said.

“There’s very little merit to stopping employee disclosure, particularly since we now have things like Glassdoor, which really make it easy for employees to find out what others are earning in return for disclosing their own compensation,” he said.

In the second type of pay transparency, employers disclose compensation ranges to current and prospective employees.

“Laws in more than a dozen U.S. states and several cities are pushing for some degree of partial transparency with mandatory employer disclosure of pay ranges,” Bamberger said.“Going beyond that, where it’s not ranges that employers show, but rather actual individual rates of pay, can be potentially risky.

“Our studies have found that letting employees see how much coworkers make tends to have some pretty detrimental effects, whether it comes to malicious envy or even counterproductive work behavior,” he said. “The comp ranges not so much, but revealing detail about how much specific individuals are making can be problematic, so you have to be very careful about how you go about doing it.

“There are some success stories that I’ve written about in a book that I wrote about pay transparency, but it can be problematic.”

The third type is procedural pay transparency, from which Bamberger and his research colleagues have found only positive outcomes.

“That is being open and transparent about every aspect of the pay system in your organization, telling employees about the basis of the compensation structure, for example, what are the criteria for increasing bonuses? How were bonuses calculated this past year? How are differential pay rates by levels in the organization determined?” Bamberger said.

“Most employees don’t have a clue as to what their benefits are or how compensation levels are determined in the organization—employee pay knowledge is really minimal,” he said.

“Where organizations enhance this procedural pay transparency, perceptions of justice and fairness increased dramatically, and that has a wide range of beneficial effects and implications on retention, social exchange and reciprocity among coworkers, and giving back to the organization.”

Pay Transparency May Breed Malicious Envy

By Daniel Butcher

Overall, researchers have found that pay transparency benefits organizations with fair compensation structures by incentivizing top performers to continue working hard and reducing turnover of talented contributors. But in certain situations, it can breed envy of high earners and undermine organizational culture.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University explained that envy can be either benign or malicious, with benign envy increasing a person’s motivation to help others, while malicious envy tends to decrease motivation. Bamberger said that in cases he studied where pay transparency bred malicious envy among colleagues, the frequency of employees helping one another decreased.

“So if I’m envious of you, and I can see that you’re having difficulties at work, will I help without you coming to me and asking for assistance? Will I come to you and say, ‘Hey, I can see you’re having some problems, here’s advice or some type of information that could help you solve some of the problems that you’re experiencing?’” Bamberger said.

“I’m less likely to do that if I’m feeling envy toward you, and I’m more likely to feel envy toward you under conditions of pay transparency,” he said.

“For people who are natural helpers, it won’t make much of a difference, but for most people, particularly among those who are more competitive or have less prosocial motivation, it can make a big difference.”

Some business leaders and managers complain that transparency is problematic, because it makes people jealous, but Bamberger and his colleagues didn’t buy that argument. Their hypothesis was that people are jealous whether pay is transparent or not, and they imagine what other people’s pay is and base their jealousy on that.

“Whether or not employees see other people’s pay, it’s still a basis for jealousy, because they believe the worst,” Bamberger said. “The difference when pay is transparent is that it’s slammed in your face, and you can’t deny it, and therefore, it’s particularly in that case where the malicious envy can be sufficiently robust to be problematic, while one of these problems was reduced unsolicited helping among coworkers.”

Pay Transparency Can Push Reward Inequities Under the Table

By Daniel Butcher

Performance-based pay—including merit-based salary increases and bonuses—can be complicated by pay transparency rules that make the details known to coworkers, according to Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University.

A reaction to that can lead to pay compression—when wages for low-skilled or low-performing workers and wages for high-skilled or high-performing workers move closer together—or an increase in requests for deals with special perks, also called idiosyncratic deals or i-deals. I-deals are non-standard work arrangements that individual employees negotiate to get remote work or flexibility, training opportunities, special assignments, and even performance benchmarks that would trigger bonuses. I-deals are often used to reward high-performing candidates and employees who have specialized skills in the hopes of retaining them long-term.

“You can imagine, if you’re a star performer and your bonus or merit-based raise is lower than it’s been before, you’re likely to think about leaving that organization and going to work somewhere else—and that’s exactly what some economists have found, that where we have pay compression, the star performers actually pick up and leave,” Bamberger said. “I recently published a paper that also shows the same thing, that pay compression very quickly leads to star performers’ departure.”

So what can organizations’ leaders do?

“What we find is that employees don’t necessarily push for more money; they make their requests for other types of rewards, primarily benefits as part of what we call idiosyncratic deals, things like the number of days per week that they can work from home or the number of weeks per year that they can work from Hawaii,” Bamberger said. “There’s a large body of literature on i-deals in management, and they include various types of benefits packages.

“What we find using data from about 120 organizations in China is that where pay is more transparent, the differentials in the pay of higher and lower performers are more compressed,” he said. “Perhaps because such a situation could drive higher performers to look for alternative employment, when pay was more transparent, employers rewarded the higher performers in other, less observable ways using these idiosyncratic deals. If fact, higher performers asked for these types of deals, and in 50% of cases where they ask for it, they got it.

“What’s actually happening is that transparency is shifting the pay differential from where it can be seen, annual raises and bonuses, to those types of rewards where it’s not transparent, that is, idiosyncratic deals.”

Why One-Size-Fits-All Diversity Training Fails to Deliver

By Daniel Butcher

The more customized and personalized in-office training sessions are, the more effective they tend to be, and that’s especially true for diversity training, according to Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University.

“We’ve all had different experiences; we all have different backgrounds,” she said. “Taking that into consideration, our starting point might be different in terms of the things we need to learn in training—somebody might need it to be more knowledge-based, whereas maybe another person is more emotion-oriented and needs to learn how not to be so reactive.

“Organizational leaders might say, ‘This sounds like a hell of a lot to customize—we have a 10,000-person organization, so how can we customize diversity training for each individual employee?’ but it’s mainly about designing for a wide range of people with different frames of reference and learning styles to improve the return on your training investment,” Roberson said. “A lot of companies buy training off the shelf, and they say, ‘This person, this competitor, or this company in our industry uses this consultant or this diversity-training program.’

“I guess it works for some of them, because they’ve been using it for years, but that doesn’t mean that it’s tailored to address your people and your culture.”

The big-picture takeaway that Roberson stressed is the important of developing flexible, customizable diversity-training models—or working directly with people who do develop diversity training and learning in a way that suits the organization’s purposes.
“Diversity training should not be a plug-and-play one-size-fits-all approach and just hoping that it’ll address all of the organization’s issues,” Roberson said.

“If leaders are spending this money, and if the organization’s people are spending time in this training, then they want to ensure that they’re getting bang for their buck—some return on their investment—and that is going to be something that’s useful and tailored to their people and their culture,” she said.

Connect the Dots from Training to Learning

By Daniel Butcher

Employee training is most effective when leaders and trainers integrate and reinforce learning objectives and key concepts throughout sessions and encourage participants to apply the new knowledge in their roles.

Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University said that pre- and post-training elements are just as important as the training session itself.

“We talk about letting people set their own goals like, ‘This is what I want to get out of the training’ or ‘This is how I want to progress through it,’ because that’s part of that act of learning and being personally responsible in the training,” Roberson said.“In the post-training environment, what happens a lot is that people who were in diversity training are excited—‘I learned this, and I met some cool people,’ etc.

“But the manager says, ‘I need you to do XYZ; get back to work—I missed you for this time you were gone,’ and so work piles up and they’re expected to jump right back into work and so don’t have an opportunity to apply what they’ve learned,” she said.
“So having managers or leaders who actually work with their employees to set goals for how they’re going to use their training in their job or building some of those into their performance evaluation help employees to feel that it’s not just something they went through that was a waste of time.”

Giving participants the opportunity to share and actually have responsibility for sharing, such as a train-the-trainer feedback forum and asking people to share what they’ve learned with colleagues and be subject-matter experts on something that was covered during the training session is a best practice, Roberson said.

“Those kinds of things at least make sure that what they learned in the training is not forgotten and tossed to the side but rather it’s actually pulled into their work,” she said. “And it helps the employees make the connection between what they learned in the training and what they actually have to do in the work environment.”

Why Many Big Brands Reneged on Diversity Commitments

By Daniel Butcher

In November 2024, Walmart joined other major corporations such as automakers Toyota and Ford Motor Co. in scratching its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the face of threatened boycotts. Walmart announced that it had pulled out of The Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which gave priority treatment to suppliers based on racial or gender diversity, and ended support for a racial equity center established after a police officer killed George Floyd in 2020.

Those decisions come in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions, which has emboldened conservative groups to pressure companies to turn their backs on their DEI commitments. For example, Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s America First Legal group has sued companies with DEI initiatives and programs focused on helping Americans of diverse racial and ethnic groups.

Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University recalled that she was confused and saddened when John Deere & Co., Tractor Supply Company, and other companies announced that they were scaling back their DEI initiatives in response to criticism and boycott threats from a conservative influencer.

“For those who recognize the value of DEI, it’s perplexing that a non-shareholder could wield such influence over corporate decision-making,” Roberson said. “However, this response reveals a deeper issue: The vulnerability of these firms’ DEI efforts suggests they were never a meaningful part of their mission or strategy.

“Instead, these initiatives were likely performative and transactional, lacking true integration into the companies’ business strategy and operations,” she said. “Unsurprisingly, such superficial approaches to attracting, engaging, and retaining key talent leaves companies exposed to both vulnerability and scrutiny.”

Why the Meanings of DEI, CRT, and Woke Have Been Warped

By Daniel Butcher

As the political pendulum swings, ideas and policies that were once uncontested and niche become controversial and mainstream. Often, terms used to define academic discourse are redefined by politicians and pundits.

For example, Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University said that terms such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), critical race theory (CRT), and woke have been removed from their original context and weaponized to support people’s political ideologies.

“When people use terminology like woke [in a disparaging sense], you’ve already told me everything I need to know, because it is not a scholarly construct—it is not its intended meaning; they’re using it in a different way,” Roberson said. “They’ve removed its context and significance and politicized it.

“Also, people are equating woke strategies with DEI, and if you unpack that, their conceptualization of DEI becomes primarily about race and maybe a little bit about LGBTQ, but it’s race and ethnicity primarily,” she said. “You don’t hear about it when people are talking about gender, veteran status, or all of the things that are protected categories like disability.

“It becomes this dog whistle for why the speaker doesn’t like certain things about how race is discussed.”

Opinions differ on why that is the case. But repurposing language has long history among political movements. Sometimes, it’s simply a way to deflect uncomfortable topics of conversation or debate.

“There are some people who consider words like equity to mean that some people get a bigger slice of a fixed pie—some people are going to get ahead and some people are not,” Roberson said. “If they think about diversity training, in their mind, that means that some people are going to be made to feel bad about how others have been treated unfairly.

“It’s this conflict-management strategy, where they say, ‘Let’s not talk about it at all—some people had it bad years ago, but we are a post-racial society,’” she said.

“If people use certain terminology, I already know where they sit, and am less likely to engage in a debate with them, because I know that they’re going on opinion or rhetoric rather than on evidence.”

Diversity Trainees Need a Mindset Shift to Learn and Change

By Daniel Butcher

A key to effective diversity training is to inspire a shift in trainees’ mindset so that they’re willing to engage with the material and discuss it with fellow participants, then—crucially—apply what they’ve learned by putting into practice in the workplace.

Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University said that she and colleagues have thought a lot about what they can do to create a new model for diversity training.

“We asked ourselves, ‘How can we do this in a way that people can actually use it?’ and so we thought about some individual or trainee personas so that participants experience what has happened in organizations and how to address those situations,” Roberson said. “You have somebody who is apprehensive and is thinking, ‘I don’t want to go through this; I don’t want to engage because I don’t want anybody yelling at me’—maybe they’re conflict-averse, and they just don’t want to be part of that sensitive conversation.

“At same time, you have trainees who are very zealous, somebody who thinks, ‘I know everything, and I could basically teach this training myself,’ and their motivation and learning is also stifled because they’re already thinking, ‘I got this’—they don’t necessarily feel like there’s anything for them to learn,” she said. “So we wanted to create this diversity-training model that’s applicable to everybody.

“Regardless of whether somebody is resistant or 100% gung-ho, how do you get that person engaged? How do you get them to into the proper mindset for the training and wanting to learn and engage and, most importantly, use it once they get back into the work environment?”

Diversity Words vs. Action

By Daniel Butcher

Plenty of leaders talk the talk about their belief in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), but fewer actually walk the walk by setting specific objectives and investing sufficient resources to make significant improvements.

Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University said that for organizations to truly earn the boost to their reputation that investing in a DEI program is likely to deliver, they must demonstrate a commitment, beyond just issuing press releases or making public statements.

“You often find that there are organizations that will express a commitment to DEI; you’re rarely going to find an organization that says, ‘We hate DEI; we’re not going to anything related to DEI; it doesn’t make sense for our organization,’ although you will have organizations do so on occasion,” Roberson said.

For example, in June 2024, Tractor Supply Company issued a statement that the organization will “no longer submit data to the Human Rights Campaign…stop sponsoring nonbusiness activities like pride festivals and voting campaigns, eliminate DEI roles and retire our current DEI goals while still ensuring a respectful environment, and withdraw our carbon emission goals and focus on our land and water conservation efforts.”

Why?

Tractor Supply Company pointed to customer feedback.

“In a way, they’re saying that those issues are not important to them anymore, so they’ve decided what they think is important to their customer base and their other stakeholders,” Roberson said. “But a lot of times you find organizations [whose leaders] hear about DEI and say, ‘We should probably do it,’ but they have limited knowledge of what that means for their part of the business and they don’t really give it deep thought about how to do it.

“They also don’t think about the demonstration of commitment to DEI; they just say things like, ‘We believe in an equitable workplace, and we believe in an inclusive workplace,’ but then when it comes time to do it, they go and look to see what everybody else is doing,” she said. “And there’s this normative effect, where they say, ‘We probably should have diversity training, employee resource groups, and some kind of outreach,’ but they pick and choose from the menu of diversity practices without thinking about what the end state is and what they want their DEI program to look like.

“And it’s perfectly fine for an organization to say, ‘We’re not really trying to change things; we just want to look good,’ because having a good reputation is an outcome that can be a driver of organizational action, but they also have to realize that if that’s all they’re doing and if people are unhappy or disengaged and they leave, or they’re having trouble recruiting, they shouldn’t be surprised, because they’re literally just expressing a commitment to DEI; they’re not demonstrating a commitment to it or trying to change their environment in any way.”

A Check-the-Box Approach Diminishes Diversity Training’s Value

By Daniel Butcher

Most large organizations have diversity training for employees, but only a few actually have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) objectives. Far too many organizations think of DEI as a check-the-box compliance exercise rather than a way to boost employee performance and well-being. But organizations that prioritize DEI reap benefits, according to Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University.

Roberson acknowledged that there is little quantitative data to support the effectiveness of diversity training in organizations. A notable exception, however, is McKinsey’s 2023 “Diversity Matters Even More” report, which found a “39% increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic and gender representation versus the bottom quartile.” In addition, McKinsey found that the performance of companies lacking diverse representation is likely to be 30% lower on average than their more diverse competitors.

“Part of the problem is that a lot of DEI training is implemented and used from a compliance perspective, so if there are any problems, leaders send people to do diversity training, so it gets rid of the vulnerability for the organization, rather than thinking about what diversity training was originally designed for and intended to be,” Roberson said. “It’s to change attitudes and behavior.

“People’s attitude to DEI is very sticky, because by the time they go through diversity trading at work, they’re who they’re going to become as people—they’re like adults, fully formed individuals,” she said. “So saying that you’re going to change their attitudes is a tall order for something that may be two hours or four hours a day at the most.

“Research on active learning says, in order for training to be effective, people have to be involved and engaged in their own learning process—I can’t come to you and say, ‘You’re going to take X, Y, and Z,’ but that doesn’t mean you’re going to be engaged in it or motivated to learn.”