Compensation Advisory Studio

Pay Equity & Compression

Statistical gap analysis (regression-controlled) and compression diagnostics across promotion ladders and new-hire vs incumbent pairs.

What this analysis does

Run regression-controlled equity analysis (controlling for level, tenure, geo, performance) and flag unexplained gaps. Separately, diagnose compression — IC-to-manager, promotion lift, new-hire vs incumbent.

Required data

Employee master, last-2yr base salary history, performance ratings, promotion history, and geo assignment.

Key outputs

Per-cohort unexplained gap %, statistical significance, and recommended remediation. Compression ratios for each ladder pair.

Data caveats

Statistical significance requires n ≥ 30 for the cohort; smaller cohorts get a qualitative review only. Engage outside counsel for any cohort with p < 0.05.

Advisor takeaway

Two unexplained gaps are statistically significant: Female ICs (-2.8%) and Female managers (-3.4%). Remediation cost is contained ($118K total annualized for 30 employees) and can land within this cycle.

Next recommended action

Close the two flagged gaps in this cycle. Phase a quarterly cadence for refresh + new-hire compression monitoring.

Cohorts reviewed
4
Significant gaps
2
Compression flags
4
Equity findings
CohortComparisonGap %nSignificanceRemediation
Female ICs vs Male ICs (P3-P5)Base, controlled for level + tenure + geo-2.8%168SignificantTargeted base adjustment of $48K total annualized across 24 employees identified by the regression.
URM employees (P3-P5)Base, controlled for level + tenure + geo-1.6%92Not significantNo statistically significant gap; continue monitoring.
Female managers (M5-M6)Base, controlled for level + tenure + geo-3.4%24SignificantTargeted base adjustment for 6 manager-level employees; refresh promotion-rate analysis.
Engineering L4-L5Base, controlled for performance rating-1.1%60Not significantGap explained by tenure mix; no action.
Compression diagnostics
Senior Engineer (P4) vs Staff Engineer (P5)
Compression risk: P5 staff promotion only $11K above P4 senior. Lift P5 midpoint.
6%
threshold 12%
Manager (M5) vs Director (M6)
Marginal — within tolerance but watch on next cycle.
11%
threshold 12%
New hire (P4) vs existing 3-yr P4 incumbent
New-hire premium has compressed existing incumbents. Stage retention adjustments.
4%
threshold 7%
Internal promotion (P4→P5) avg lift
Promotion lift below market norm. Set policy floor at 10% for promotions.
8%
threshold 10%
Advisor takeaway
High
What we found

Two statistically significant gaps (Female ICs −2.8%, Female managers −3.4%). Compression is acute at three pairs: P4→P5, P4 new-hire vs incumbent, and P4→P5 promotion lift.

Why it matters

Unexplained gaps drift into legal exposure; the comp committee will require a remediation plan with documented criteria. Compression is a quieter failure mode — it discourages internal promotion and erodes career-architecture trust.

Recommended action

(1) Fund equity remediation of $118K across 30 employees in the current cycle. (2) Lift P5 midpoint to widen the P4→P5 gap. (3) Add a new-hire compression check to the offer-approval workflow.

Risks

Documenting equity remediation creates discoverable evidence — counsel review is required before any communication.

Questions to ask the client
  • Is the comp committee aligned on documenting unexplained gaps as 'unexplained variance' rather than 'gap'? Word choice matters for legal posture.
  • What's the current offer-approval workflow? Adding a new-hire compression check should slot into existing controls.
Data caveats

Regression uses 7 controls (level, tenure, geo, performance, function, manager, prior role). Adding more controls may reduce significance but also raises concerns about over-controlling.

Suggested next module

Open Governance to add equity-refresh cadence to the controls inventory.