When setting pay rates, compensation managers must take into consideration

the employees' perception of fair, equitable compensation.

Pay Equity: Internal and

External Considerations

KENT ROMANOFF KEN BOEHM EDWARD BENSON

Associate Labor Economist Vice-President,
Hay Group, Inc. Pacific Telesis Hay Group, Inc.

EqUity (or fairness), a central theme in compensation theory and practice, arises
in many different contexts. Here, for example, are some major areas:
• The legal and economic issue of equal pay for similar work (comparable worth).
• Pay differences caused by external competition or market pressures.
• The fairness of individual wage rates for people who are doing the same job.
• Individual employee views of their value relative to their pay.
A company's approach to equity is as important as the actual pay programs it im­
plements. Companies typically emphasize external equity in the design of their com­
pensation structures. This focus on external equity enables a ,company to develop
compensation structures and programs that are competitive with other companies in
appropriate labor markets. Perceptions of equity can also influence a company's abil­
ity to attract, retain, and motivate its employees.
Employee perceptions of equity and inequity are equally important and should be
carefully considered when a company sets compensation objectives. Employees who
perceive equitable pay treatment may be more motivated to perform better or to sup­
port a company's goals. Individual employees, however, perceive equity in many
different ways. Therefore, it is difficult to specify one definition of equity that is ap­
plicable to all s i t u a t i o n s . '
In sum, compensation equity poses a conceptual and practical challenge: how to
reconcile the company's ability to pay (financial resources), desire to pay (image), and

17
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS REVIEW

need to pay (labor market) with the employees' perception of equity (fairness).

Equity is commonly defined as anything of value earned

Definitions
through providing or investing something of value. Fairness is
of Equity
achieved when the return on equity is equivalent to the invest­
ment made. As it relates to compensation, fairness is achieved when pay equates to
the value of the work performed. Inequity, on the other hand, occurs when the value
of the work performed does not match the value of the compensation received.

Equity Theory
Early studies indicate that inequitable treatment directly affects and influences em­
ployee behavior and performance. In Equity Theory Towards a General Theory of
Social Interaction (The Academic Press, 1976), J. Stacy Adams proposed that an em­
ployee continuously monitors his or her inputs and outputs on the job, and perceives
an equitable situation when the ratio of his or her inputs and outputs are equal, to
those of other employees. If this ratio is not equal, the employee may feel angry (as
a result of not being paid enough) or guilty (as a result of being paid too much). Either
feeling could result in dissatisfaction or discomfort.
One can view equity from either an internal or an external perspective. Internally,
equity can be expressed in terms of employees who do the following:
• Perform similar jobs.

KENT E. ROMANOFF, as associate with the San Jose, California office of Hay Management
Consultants, provides a broad range of general management and human resources consulting
services across several industry sectors. Romanoff earned a B.A. and an M.A. from Stanford
University. Before joining Hay, he was manager of training and technical publications for
SoloSystems Inc " a high-technology company involved in designing and manufacturing
microcomputer workstations. He is also a past director of the Institute for Programming
Technology. KENNETH F. BOEHM, a corporate labor economist for Pacific Bell, is responsible
for compensation planning for all nonsalaried employees. He also serves as graduate lecturer
in statistics and economic forecasting at Golden Gate University. Currently completing his
Ph.D. in business administration at Golden Gate University, Boehm holds a B.S. in
mathematics from UCLA and an M.B.A. from Pepperdine University. In addition to being
a Certified Compensation Professional (CCP), Boehm is a member of the National Associa­
tion of Business Economists, the American Compensation Association, the Northern
California Human Resources Council, the Human Resources Systems Professionals, and the
American Management Association. EDWARD E. BENSON JR" a vice-president in Hay's Wal­
nut Creek office, consults in the area of human resources, providing management and orga­
nization services to a wide variety of clients. During the last three years, Benson has been
particularly active in developing total compensation and human resource programs for start­
up ventures within major corporations. He holds a B.S. in industrial rrianagement/psychol­
ogy and an M.S. in business administration from San Jose State University, where he was
a research assistant to the dean of the business school.

18
 PAY EQUITY

• Perform dissimilar jobs.

• Work within the same department.
• Work in different departments.
Externally, equity can be expressed in terms of employees who have these relation­
ships to one another:
• In the same industry.
• In different industries.
• In the same union.
• In the same profession.
• In the same geographic location.
• In different geographic locations.
• In organizations of similar size.
• In organizations of differing sizes.
Specifically, equity can be grouped into four major categories: external equity, in­
ternal equity, individual equity, and personal equity. Each is discussed below.

External Equity
External equity exists when an employer pays a wage rate commensurate with the
wages prevailing in external labor markets~ Assessing external equity requires meas­
uring these labor markets. There is, however, no single labor market for a particular
job. Supply and demand differ substantially among markets, resulting in significant
variation in wages across labor markets.
The following factors contribute to these wage differences among markets:
• Geographic location.
• Industry sector.
• Union status.
• Organization size.
• Product competition.
• Company prestige..
• Education and experience level of available work force.
• Licensing or certification requirements called for by the job.
Some combination of these factors determine the labor market for a particular job.
Employers should carefully define the appropriate market{s) to assure accurate exter­
nal wage comparisons. Defining the market too narrowly can result in wages that are
higher than necessary. If, for example, a company doing business in two locations
defines its pay practice solely in terms of a metropolitan labor market, it could set
wages that are unnecessarily high for its rural areas. Conversely, defining the market
too broadly may cause an organization to set wages too low to attract and retain com­
petent employees.

19
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS REVIEW

Internal Equity
Internal equity exists when an employer pays wages commensurate with the relative
internal value of each job. This is established according to the employer's perception
of the importance of the work performed.
Before an organization can estimate the importance of each job, however, it must
first determine the job-related factors that will be used for setting compensation
levels - in short, compensable factors. Here are some typical compensable factors
used for lower-level jobs:
• Education required.
• Experience required.
• Physical demands.
• Responsibility for equipment/materials.
• Responsibility for the safety of others.
• Supervisory/managerial responsibility.
• Working conditions.
• Accident or health hazards.
• Public contact.
• Manual dexterity.
Determining the relative internal value of jobs in a large or complex organization
can be a difficult process. Job-evaluation methods are often used to develop a job hier­
archy that reflects the relative value of jobs on the basis of skill, effort, responsibility,
and working conditions. A number of job-evaluation approaches have been devel­
oped. Such approaches include (1) whole job ranking, (2) classification, (3) point fac­
tors, (4) factor comparison, (5) slotting, and (6) scored questionnaires.
Whether an organization chooses a rigorous and disciplined approach to job evalu­
ation or a relatively simple one, it should be noted that all approaches are subjective.
They depend on management judgement for their accuracy and management commit­
ment for their applications.

Individual Equity
Individual equity exists when an employer compensates individuals who are in
similar jobs on the basis of variations in individual performance - so-called pay for
performance. Excellent performers, for example, would receive more compensation
than average performers. For reasons that will be explored in greater detail later, the
most important compensation decisions are those that differentiate between the pay
received by individuals within the company who are performing the same job.

Personal Equity
Personal equity, unlike external, internal, or individual equity, involves no direct
comparison of one individual's compensation with another's. Personal equity exists

20
 PAY EQUITY

when an employer pays a wage rate that satisfies an employee's own perception of
his or her worth. The standards applied by each person relate to that particular indi­
vidual's previous experiences and his or her knowledge of the market value of similar
jobs. These internal standards can determine the employee's pay satisfaction or dis­
satisfaction.

Companies make several basic decisions concerning their ap­

How Companies
proach to equity when formulating compensation objectives.
View Equity
For example, they decide the amount of compensation an em­
ployee will receive compared with that of employees working in other companies, the
amount of compensation that employees will receive compared with that of individu­
als who have different jobs within the same company, and the differences in compen­
sation that will exist because of individual job performance. Companies approach
these issues through their fundamental approach to equity strategy.
In developing a compensation program, organizations generally compare their own
employees' compensation with the compensation of those who work for other firms
(that is, external equity). There are three basic reasons that organizations emphasize
external equity:
1. The belief that failure to match other companies' salaries will lead to a decline
in employee morale and productivity.
2. The belief that below-average wages will hinder a company's ability to attract
good people.
3. The opinion that management is morally obligated to pay prevailing wages, and
that an inability to do so is an admission of managerial failure.
When comparing their compensation structures with those of external labor mar­
kets, companies focus on these key variables.
• Competitive market. Companies doing business in highly competitive indus­
tries are often forced to balance the need to control costs with the need to pay higher
wages to attract a talented workforce.
• Industry sector. Wages in labor-intensive industries (for example, telecommuni­
cations), constitute a significant portion of overall operating costs. Therefore, there
is constant pressure to control wages. In nonlabor-intensive industries (for example,
transportation) however, where wages do not represent a major portion of operating
costs, there is less pressure to reduce wages to control cost.
• Organization size. Large organizations tend to pay more, sometimes signifi­
cantly more than small organizations.
• Union status. Labor unions that establish themselve~ in an industry able to meet
their demands can have a considerable impact on raising industry wage levels.
• Image. Sometimes organizations pay more than the "going rate" to establish
themselves as a good place to work. These organizations believe that having a reputa­

21
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS REVIEW

tion as a high-paying company can aid recruitment. In addition, organizations in­

terested in being an industry pay leader may offer higher wages simply to demonstrate
their leadership position.
• Geographic location. Companies doing business in certain geographic locations
frequently compensate their employees on the basis of the area's prevailing economic
conditions. Such conditions may be a result of the local cost of living or the need to
attract and retain employees in less desirable areas.
Companies traditionally emphasize the external equity of their compensation struc­
tures. For example, a 1975 Bureau of National Affairs study showed that over 800/0
of both large and small firms ranked external competitiveness as their most important
compensation objective. This emphasis on external equity demands the availability
of high quality of labor market data. Because labor markets tend to be highly vari­
able, difficult to track, and difficult to describe, companies are often forced to partici­
pate in elaborate, costly wage surveys to get the data they need.
Companies are beginning to recognize some of the limitations associated with
focusing on external equity as the primary basis for setting compensation objectives.
A 1985 study by the Conference Board showed that employers are starting to consider
internal factors as more important than external factors in setting wage levels. These
companies recognize that overemphasizing external equity may detract from impor­
tant internal equity considerations.

Individual employees view equity differently from the way or­

How Employees
ganizations view it. While organizations tend to compare
View Equity
themselves with other organizations, individuals tend to com­
pare their pay with that of other people within the organization. For this reason per­
ceptions of internal equity can influence a company's compensation objectives as
much as or more than external equity can.
A study conducted in 1972 by Allan N. Nash adds insight to this issue. Participants
were asked which of the following situations would make them the most angry:
1. If they were paid less for similar work than employees were paid in other organi­
zations.
2. If they were paid less for the same work than employees were paid in their own
organization.
3. If they were paid less for different work than employees were paid in their own
organization.
Seventy-eight percent of the respondents indicated that theX would be the most an­
gered if they found themselves paid less than others doing the same job in their own
organization (#2). (Of this 780/0, 640/0 ranked similar job/different company second
in importance [#1].)

22
 PAY EQUITY

In addition to pay, there are many things that influence an employee's perception
of equity. Studies show that workers often rank job security, working conditions, ad­
vancement opportunities, management appreciation, relations with co-workers, and
flexibility of hours or job assignment ahead of pay. But because job security is linked
to stability of income, it is possible that pay is more important than these studies indi­
cate. The fact remains, however, that an individual's perception of equity is strongly
affected by factors other than pay.
A question remains concerning how large a differential an employee must perceive
between his or her own pay and that of employees in other applicable jobs before
feelings of inequity result. Studies suggest that employees perceive pay inequity when
there's a pay differential approaching 15%-200/0. If this 150/0-200/0 threshold is
reached, what actions are employees most likely to take?
In such circumstances, employees are likely to take one of the following actions:
Ask for a raise, reduce effort on the job, seek to reduce the pay of others (that is,
complain), or leave the company. Of these four actions, leaving the company is proba­
bly the least likely because it carries with it the greatest risk. First, for specialized jobs
in large organizations, an employee's skills may not be transferable to other organiza­
tions. Second, there are the unknown aspects of working conditions, quality of super­
vision, and co-workers associated with changing jobs. Finally, there are certain geo­
graphic constraints; even if an employee gets a suitable offer that meets all other
criteria, it will be unacceptable if it is too far away. But even if employees don't quit,
the negative consequences of retaining dissatisfied employees who feel that they are
being treated unfairly can have significant motivational and cost implications for a
company.
In summary, it appears that employees may look at compensation equity from a
different viewpoint than that of their employers. Companies go to great lengths to
establish mechanisms for assessing pay practices in other companies, while employees
are primarily concerned with equity in their company.

Because external and internal equity operate independently,

The Experts'
the wage suggested by the external labor market can differ dra­
Opinion
matically from the wage dictated by an internal job ranking.
Historically, there has been considerable debate on which approach takes precedence.
The following statements indicate the opinions of some compensation experts. The
first two support emphasizing external equity, while the last two favor internal equity
considerations.
• "In most cases, it makes sense to focus on external pay comparisons as the major
criteria for determining total compensation levels. Both internal and external inequity
have serious consequences for the organization. However, the consequences of exter­

23
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS REVIEW

nal inequity ... are the most severe for the organization and are the ones that deserve
primary attention." (Edward E. Lawler, Pay and Organizational Development,
Addison-Wesley, 1981)
• "We feel it is important to underline the sovereignty of external equity influence
on wages over internal equity influence. Certainly the power of a wage or salary to
attract employees is based solely on external equity considerations. The retention
power of a wage or salary is also influenced heavily by external equity considerations.
When external and internal equity considerations are in conflict, we suspect ... that
external equity takes precedence." (Mark J. Wallace and Charles H. Fay, Compensa­
tion Theory and Practice, Kent Publishing Company, 1983)
• "Most pay comparison research suggests that it is probably more important to
have internal equity than external. Employees can seemingly obtain a better grasp of
whether they think they are fairly paid by a particular employer through looking at
other jobs in that organization than they can by weighing external information."
(Thomas H. Patten, Pay: Employee Compensation and Incentive Plans, The Free
Press, 1977)
• "Experience seems to indicate that establishment of compromise rates in cases of
conflict is probably the solution. Internal consistency is more important than strict
external competitiveness." (Milton L. Rock, Handbook of Wage and Salary Adminis­
tration, McGraw-Hill, 1984)
Finally, the American Compensation Association (ACA) and the American Society
for Personnel Administration (ASPA) have recently issued a joint policy statement
that reflects the current dilemma over external equity and internal equity.
Regardless of the methodology selected (in job evaluation), pay grades and pay ranges are
ultimately determined by:
1. Market rates for comparable jobs - external competitiveness. This approach is referred
to as the "labor market," or "market supply" approach.
2. Management's judgements as to the relative internal worth of the job's content­
internal equity. Organizations may place different emphasis on either external competitive­
ness, internal equity, or a blend of the two depending on their objectives or circumstances.

The issue, therefore, is still how to reconcile the conflict between external and internal
equity.

The quotations above suggest that there is no right or wrong

Balancing External
answer to the question of which should be the primary
and Internal Equity
consideration - external or internal eqlfity - for formulating
compensation objectives. However, companies must try to reconcile external and in­
ternal equity issues when setting wage and salary policy. The long-term need is to es­
tablish both a strategic organization-wide wage-level policy that specifically ad­

24
 PAY EQUITY

dresses a company's approach to pay relative to the marketplace (Le., external equity),
and an internal job evaluation methodology for use in assessing the relative value of
each job in an organization (Le., internal equity).
The strategic wage-level policy should take into consideration not only the charac­
teristics of the external labor market, but also the jobs and job families that are most
critical to the long-term success of the organization. This will help the organization
meet its external equity objectives.
The internal job evaluation methodology positions the organization to address its
internal equity objectives. Once the relative internal value and importance of differ­
ent jobs is established, each job can be compared with appropriate labor markets.
If discrepancies arise between individual jobs, they can be reconciled using the inter­
nal ranking system. Because employee perceptions of equity are most affected by
comparisons with jobs that are similar to theirs, the internal ranking provides the best
guidance for setting individual wage levels.
Occasionally, because of a short-term supply-and-demand imbalance, certain jobs
may have to be paid more to attract and retain competent employees. These situations
usually do not arise until the market for the job (or the job family) exceeds the com­
pany's wage by 15%-200/0. When this occurs, it may be appropriate for a company
to institute a pay policy exception for the affected job or group. However, the im­
balance should be regularly checked and verified as, over time, it may no longer re­
quire special consideration.
Companies operating in several geographic locations often create separate pay poli­
cies for each location to takecadvantage of wage differences in local labor markets.
Paying geographic differentials may, however, erode employee perceptions of internal
equity. But because employee perceptions of equity are usually based on similar jobs
in similar location and because geographic pay differentials are often less than 15 0/0,
paying geographic differentials will probably have a minimum negative impact. As
a result, the decision to institute a geographic pay policy should be based more on
strategic and economic' considerations than on internal equity considerations.
In conclusion, organizations should consider a two-pronged approach to setting
wage levels. External data should be used to establish strategic guidelines for overall
company pay policy. In addition, a sound job-evaluation methodology should be
used to determine the relative internal value of the company's jobs. This job evalua­
tion methodology lays the groundwork for establishing internal equity. This ap­
proach provides an objective basis for making critical compensation decisions and
adds increased credibility to an organization's pay practice and better satisfies em­
ployees' equity concerns.

DOD
25