The last big employment taboo
It is a staple of water-cooler conversation bigger even than nocturnal dalliances at the Christmas party. She's just had her annual review but is she getting more than me? And, if so, how much more? He was poached from a rival and the company must have paid him a hefty premium. He is more experienced than you, even though the boss rates you more highly. What do you think he earns: $5,000, $10,000 more?
The subject is, of course, what our colleagues earn. And few topics of conversation involve so much chatter based on so little knowledge.
Of course, some people do talk openly about their salaries. In financial trading, for instance, if bonuses are handsome the boys like to brag but are they talking themselves up or down? At fast food outlets, staff might discuss pay for precisely the opposite reasons. However, the vast majority of middle-class middle-earners would not dream of disclosing their salary to their colleagues. In a tiny minority of companies, though, they would have no choice.
Happy Computers, aLondon-based information technology training company, is one such business. “Everything here is open and available,” says Henry Stewart, chief executive. “Why should salaries be any different?”
Hiding pay levels, Mr Stewart explains, leads to a culture of disinformation in which people believe that the gaps between earnings are much greater than they actually are. Further, he says, openness means that managers have to be able to justify their decisions to everyone: “In that sense it's a very good discipline.”
Another company that operates a transparent system is Aspen, an actuarial insurance company. “We started up 16 years ago with five people and even though we now employ 50, we've maintained the system,” says John Hough, Aspen's managing director. Like Stewart, he sees the discipline of justifying wage levels and transparency as a big plus and says the secrecy that an open salary structure eliminates means a more efficient business.
“It's quite an extraordinary thing to do,” says Charles Sutton, a director at Nicholson McBride, theLondon-based corporate psychologists, “especially when you consider that in some companies discussing salary levels is a sackable offence.” But, he adds, it does send out an undeniably powerful message: “If a business can be transparent about this, then one would assume that the other cultural characteristics are similarly transparent. If that's the case then it's a very good thing.”
In fact, it is remarkable how far such transparency can go. At Aspen, for instance, it is possible for any member of staff to look up not only Mr Hough's salary, but also his expenses although he doubts that anyone actually bothers. Transparency, after all, does tend to build trust or at least an assumption that there is nothing juicy enough to hide.
Like Mr Sutton, Chris Charman of remuneration consultants Towers Perrin is surprised and impressed by what these businesses are doing. “It's very bold and innovative and getting it to work could be very challenging,” he says, “but if you can do it, it's quite an achievement. I'd even go as far as saying that it's a bit Utopian.”
There is certainly an engaging whiff of idealism about a company that lays so many of its cards on the table. Salary transparency means that a lot of ugly little secrets such as any sexism in pay structure would be laid bare. And when this happens, management has to do something about it. For example, says Mr Stewart, no one could accuse Happy Computers of sex discrimination “Because most of our best-paid staff are women. It's there for anyone to see.”
So, why isn't everyone opening up their payrolls? For one thing, it is notable that both Happy Computers and Aspen have practised transparency from the outset. In most companies where pay structures have evolved over the years and been subject to all sorts of pressures, such as the need to recruit outside talent at a premium it would be very difficult subsequently to impose an utterly fair and equable pay structure.
“A lot of organisations shy away from this,” says Mr Charman, “because they have been dealt a legacy hand.” In this case, he adds, the only solution would probably be to raise everyone's pay to the highest common denominator.
Both Aspen and Happy Computers are based in a single location and are relatively small, with about 50 employees. This makes matters a lot easier: imagine the difficulties involved in imposing payroll perestroika on a company with tens of thousands of workers i in dozens of countries. Transparency could make it difficult to explain to an employee in India why he was earning one-eighth the salary of his UK counterpart, even though they are doing exactly the same job. Moreover, although staff reaction in both businesses is generally positive, Mr Hough says it puts a lot of pressure on some employees. “It makes your pay review a very public indicator of how you've performed over the last year. It can be quite brutal if you're not doing very well.” And, for management, the downside of the “discipline” of rigorous and totally defensible pay reviews is that all that justification can make them time-consuming and long-winded.
For some businesses the disadvantages can accumulate. CMG, an IT services business, operated pay transparency until it merged with Logica (which didn't) to form LogicaCMG. After the merger the new group dropped the policy. “It would have caused unnecessary complications,” explains a spokesman, “as one of the two businesses had never operated it. And it was difficult to see what commercial purpose implementing it [for those who had never had it] would serve.”
The return to secrecy was not complete, however. Every consultant in the group has a billing client rate (BCR), which is well known and regularly used when assembling project teams. “If you were really that interested you could take someone's BCR and work back to get an idea of their basic salary,” says the spokesman.
Public bodies, too, are more likely to operate with something approaching an open pay system. Until recently, for instance, the UK senior civil service (SCS) had nine pay grades and, says a Cabinet Office official, “if you knew someone's grade, you didn't know exactly what their pay was, but you had a pretty good idea.”
All this changed in 2001 when, to move into line with the private sector, the SCS adopted three (sometimes four) bands. Pay can still be guessed at, but as the grades overlap and the first senior salary grade stretches from ￡53,451-￡74,289 ($97,000-$135,000), scope remains for water-cooler speculation. And, although jobs are graded by band, the breadth, the official adds, “allows for a sizeable performance-related element to pay.”
Although some have fallen off the transparency bandwagon, many believe it is a tantalising possibility for business. Given time, it could be implemented more widely. “You could start by capping the salaries of highly paid employees who weren't performing,” says Mr Charman, “but you'd have to make sure the business case was there for it.”
David Ellis, a partner at BDO's employment solutions group, takes a similar line. “The challenge is ensuring that the upside like getting rid of sniping and speculation outweighs the negatives. Although it's very rare at the moment, it could work tremendously well if you got it right.” Even so, expect change to be gradual. He adds: “Being honest about what you earn is the last great business taboo.”
最后的职场大忌
这是职场八卦的中心话题，讨论的热烈程度比圣诞夜派对上的寻欢作乐还高。她刚通过年度评审，可她是不是挣得比我还多？如果真是这样，她多拿多少？他是从一家对手公司撬来的，公司肯定给了他一大笔奖金。尽管老板更器重你，可是他比你有经验得多。你认为他能挣多少：5000英镑？10000英镑？还是更多？
谈论的主题，当然就是我们的同事挣多少。没有什么话题能像这样议论甚多，而对实情却知之甚少。
当然，也有一些人的确公开谈论他们的薪水。例如在金融界，要是花红丰厚，男士们就会吹嘘起来，可他们何曾谈论过他们的升迁降级？在快餐厅里，要是员工们议论薪金，一定是出于相反的原因。不过，对于绝大多数属于中产阶级、工资不高不低的工薪族来说，他们压根不会把自己工资数目透露给同僚。但是在一小部分公司里，他们却别无选择。
“欢乐电脑”（Happy Computers），这家设在伦敦的信息技术培训公司，就是这样的一家企业。“在这里任何事都是公开的，可供查询的，”公司首席执行官亨利?斯图尔特（Henry Stewart）说，“薪水为什么要有所不同呢？”
斯图尔特解释说，隐瞒工资水平会导致一种充斥着假消息的文化，生活在其中的人就会认为收入水平的差距比实际要大得多。他进一步说明，信息公开就意味着经理必须向所有人证明他的决定是正确的，“这样一来，这就成为一项良好的制度”。
保险精算公司Aspen是另一家执行透明化制度的公司。Aspen的董事总经理约翰?哈夫（John Hough）说：“我们16年前创业时只有5个人，尽管我们现在雇佣了50名员工，但还保持同一机制。”他和斯图尔特一样，认为对工资水平加以解释和透明化的制度是公司一大法宝，他表示，工资透明的制度消除了遮遮掩掩的状况，使得企业运营更加高效。
“这是一件非同寻常的事，”伦敦一家企业心理研究机构Nicholson McBride负责人查尔斯?萨顿（Charles Sutton）称，“尤其是当你想到，在某些公司讨论薪水是一桩能导致被开除的过失。”但是他补充说，这种制度发出一种不容置疑的强烈信息：“如果一家企业能够在这方面做到透明公开的话，员工就会认为其他的文化特征也具有相似的透明度。若果然如此，这就是一件大好事。”
实际上，透明程度究竟能有多大也是值得关注的。例如在Aspen，不仅每个员工都能了解到哈夫的工资水平，也能知道他的开支状况，不过哈夫怀疑是否真的有人去查询这些信息。总之，透明化能够建立信任，或者至少会让人认为企业里没有人因为报酬太高而要隐藏实情。
和萨顿一样，薪资咨询公司Towers Perrin 的克力斯?查曼（Chris Charman）对于这些公司所采用的制度感到非常惊讶而且印象深刻。“这种做法是非常有胆识和创新精神的，执行起来可能会遇到很大挑战，”他说，“但如果你能做到的话，这就是一大成就。要是说远一些，这有点儿乌托邦的意味。”
一家公司把这么多内部情况和盘托出，这的确有一抹迷人的理想主义色彩。工资透明化意味着一大堆丑恶的小秘密（比如性别歧视对工资结构的影响）就会暴露出来。若是真有这样的情况发生，管理层就要采取相应的措施。例如，斯图尔特表示，没人能指责欢乐电脑公司搞性别歧视，“因为我们这里工资最高的绝大多数都是女性。这一点每个人都能看到。”
既然如此，大家为什么还不都公布自己的工资单呢？有这样一个原因：应当认识到，欢乐电脑和Aspen从创业开始就一直执行着透明化制度。而大部分公司的工资结构是多年来形成的，并且面临着各种压力。比如说，公司需要花重金从外部招聘人才，这样就很难建立一种绝对公正和稳定的工资结构。
“很多机构对此避而不谈，”查曼指出，“因为他们受到传统做法的影响。”鉴此，他补充说，唯一的办法可能就是把每个人的工资都提升到最高的相同水平。
Aspen和欢乐电脑公司都设在同一地点，规模相对较小，仅有约50名员工。这种情况让事情好办多了。设想一下，如果在遍布数十个国家、员工多达数万人的大公司进行工资改革，面临的困难会有多大啊！实行透明化以后，如果要向一名印度员工解释为什么他的工资只有干完全一样工作的英国员工的八分之一，这恐怕就很困难。此外，尽管在上述两家企业的员工对这一做法的反应总体比较积极，哈夫指出，这也给一些员工带来压力。“这使得你的工资评定成为衡量去年工作成绩的公开指标。要是你干得不太出色，这就相当残酷了。”同时，对于管理层来说，进行工资评定必须非常严格，而且员工完全可以据理力争，其负面作用就是管理层要花大量时间喋喋不休地讨论。
对于某些企业，这种负作用还会不断积累。信息技术服务企业CMG原先一直实行工资透明化制度，后来它与（并未实行这一制度）的Logica公司合并成LogicaCMG公司。合并后，新的公司放弃了这一制度。“这会造成不必要的复杂状况，”公司发言人解释说，“这是因为两家企业中的一家从未实行过这一制度。（对于从未实行这一制度的公司来说，）我们看不到推行这一制度能够达成什么样的商业目标。”
不过，公司也并未完全重返隐匿工资水平的状态。公司的每一位顾问都有一个客户收费率（BRC），这个所有人都知道，而且在召集项目小组时会经常用到。发言人说：“你要是真的那么感兴趣，就可以记下某人的BRC然后算出他的基本工资。”
公共机构也更有可能开始实行类似的工资公开制度。例如，从前英国高级公务员制度（SCS）设定了9个工资等级，内阁办公厅的一位官员表示：“原先你如果知道某人的级别，虽然还不清楚他拿多少钱，但也基本上知道得差不多了。”
2001年，为了与私营部门接轨，这一制度进行了改革。SCS采用了三大（有时是4个）等级。虽然还能够猜测出某人的薪金水平，但是由于各等级之间有重合部分，而且一等高级公务员的薪金等级分布范围为53451－74289英镑（合97000－135000美元），人们在闲谈中仍旧会揣测公务员的工资水平。此外，那位官员补充说，尽管工作按照等级进行了分类，但在同一等级内“根据工作表现而发放的薪酬数额也相当大。”
尽管有些机构已经加入了工资透明化的大潮，可还有很多人认为这对企业来说是可望而不可即的。如果假以时日，这一制度也许会推广开来。“开始的时候你可以先给那些拿高薪而工作表现一般的员工设定工资上限，”查曼说，“但你要弄清楚企业性质是否适合这么做。”
大卫?埃利斯（David Ellis）是提供人力方案的BDO公司的一位合伙人，他采取了类似的路线。“面临的挑战是如何确保不断消除恶意中伤和无端猜测，使得大于失。尽管这种做法现在尚不多见，但如果执行得当，这一方法就能发挥重要的作用。”尽管如此，也不能期望变革一蹴而就。他补充说：“对自己的工资开诚布公，这是职场中最后的一大禁忌。”
