Why you should know how much your coworkers get paid David Burkus

How much do you get paid?

Don’t answer that out loud.

But put a number in your head.

Now: How much do you think the person
sitting next to you gets paid?

Again, don’t answer out loud.

(Laughter)

At work, how much do you think

the person sitting in the cubicle
or the desk next to you gets paid?

Do you know?

Should you know?

Notice, it’s a little uncomfortable for me
to even ask you those questions.

But admit it – you kind of want to know.

Most of us are uncomfortable with the idea
of broadcasting our salary.

We’re not supposed to tell our neighbors,

and we’re definitely not supposed
to tell our office neighbors.

The assumed reason is that if everybody
knew what everybody got paid,

then all hell would break loose.

There’d be arguments, there’d be fights,

there might even be a few people who quit.

But what if secrecy is actually
the reason for all that strife?

And what would happen
if we removed that secrecy?

What if openness actually increased
the sense of fairness and collaboration

inside a company?

What would happen if we had
total pay transparency?

For the past several years,

I’ve been studying the corporate
and entrepreneurial leaders

who question the conventional wisdom
about how to run a company.

And the question of pay keeps coming up.

And the answers keep surprising.

It turns out that pay transparency –

sharing salaries openly
across a company –

makes for a better workplace
for both the employee

and for the organization.

When people don’t know how their pay
compares to their peers',

they’re more likely to feel underpaid

and maybe even discriminated against.

Do you want to work at a place
that tolerates the idea

that you feel underpaid
or discriminated against?

But keeping salaries secret
does exactly that,

and it’s a practice
as old as it is common,

despite the fact
that in the United States,

the law protects an employee’s right
to discuss their pay.

In one famous example from decades ago,

the management of Vanity Fair magazine

actually circulated a memo entitled:

“Forbidding Discussion Among
Employees of Salary Received.”

“Forbidding” discussion among
employees of salary received.

Now that memo didn’t sit well
with everybody.

New York literary figures
Dorothy Parker,

Robert Benchley and Robert Sherwood,

all writers in the Algonquin Round Table,

decided to stand up for transparency

and showed up for work the next day

with their salary written on signs
hanging from their neck.

(Laughter)

Imagine showing up for work

with your salary just written
across your chest for all to see.

But why would a company even want
to discourage salary discussions?

Why do some people go along with it,
while others revolt against it?

It turns out that in addition
to the assumed reasons,

pay secrecy is actually a way
to save a lot of money.

You see, keeping salaries secret

leads to what economists call
“information asymmetry.”

This is a situation where,
in a negotiation,

one party has loads more
information than the other.

And in hiring or promotion
or annual raise discussions,

an employer can use that secrecy
to save a lot of money.

Imagine how much better
you could negotiate for a raise

if you knew everybody’s salary.

Economists warn that information asymmetry

can cause markets to go awry.

Someone leaves a pay stub on the copier,

and suddenly everybody
is shouting at each other.

In fact, they even warn

that information asymmetry
can lead to a total market failure.

And I think we’re almost there.

Here’s why:

first, most employees have no idea
how their pay compares to their peers'.

In a 2015 survey of 70,000 employees,

two-thirds of everyone who is paid
at the market rate

said that they felt they were underpaid.

And of everybody who felt
that they were underpaid,

60 percent said
that they intended to quit,

regardless of where they were –
underpaid, overpaid

or right at the market rate.

If you were part of this survey,
what would you say?

Are you underpaid?

Well, wait – how do you even know,

because you’re not allowed
to talk about it?

Next, information asymmetry, pay secrecy,

makes it easier to ignore
the discrimination

that’s already present
in the market today.

In a 2011 report from the Institute
for Women’s Policy Research,

the gender wage gap
between men and women

was 23 percent.

This is where that 77 cents
on the dollar comes from.

But in the Federal Government,

where salaries are pinned
to certain levels

and everybody knows
what those levels are,

the gender wage gap
shrinks to 11 percent –

and this is before controlling
for any of the factors

that economists argue over
whether or not to control for.

If we really want to close
the gender wage gap,

maybe we should start
by opening up the payroll.

If this is what total
market failure looks like,

then openness remains
the only way to ensure fairness.

Now, I realize that letting people
know what you make

might feel uncomfortable,

but isn’t it less uncomfortable

than always wondering
if you’re being discriminated against,

or if your wife or your daughter
or your sister is being paid unfairly?

Openness remains the best way
to ensure fairness,

and pay transparency does that.

That’s why entrepreneurial leaders
and corporate leaders

have been experimenting
with sharing salaries for years.

Like Dane Atkinson.

Dane is a serial entrepreneur
who started many companies

in a pay secrecy condition

and even used that condition
to pay two equally qualified people

dramatically different salaries,

depending on how well
they could negotiate.

And Dane saw the strife
that happened as a result of this.

So when he started
his newest company, SumAll,

he committed to salary transparency
from the beginning.

And the results have been amazing.

And in study after study,

when people know
how they’re being paid

and how that pay compares to their peers',

they’re more likely to work hard
to improve their performance,

more likely to be engaged,
and they’re less likely to quit.

That’s why Dane’s not alone.

From technology start-ups like Buffer,

to the tens of thousands
of employees at Whole Foods,

where not only is your salary
available for everyone to see,

but the performance data
for the store and for your department

is available on the company intranet

for all to see.

Now, pay transparency
takes a lot of forms.

It’s not one size fits all.

Some post their salaries for all to see.

Some only keep it inside the company.

Some post the formula for calculating pay,

and others post the pay levels

and affix everybody to that level.

So you don’t have to make signs

for all of your employees
to wear around the office.

And you don’t have to be
the only one wearing a sign

that you made at home.

But we can all take greater steps
towards pay transparency.

For those of you that have the authority

to move forward towards transparency:

it’s time to move forward.

And for those of you
that don’t have that authority:

it’s time to stand up for your right to.

So how much do you get paid?

And how does that compare
to the people you work with?

You should know.

And so should they.

Thank you.

(Applause)

你得到多少报酬?

不要大声回答。

但是在你的脑海里放一个数字。

现在:你认为
坐在你旁边的人得到多少报酬?

再次,不要大声回答。

(笑声)

在工作中,你

认为坐在隔间
或隔壁桌子上的人得到多少报酬?

你知道吗?

你应该知道吗?

请注意,
我什至问你这些问题都有点不舒服。

但承认吧——你有点想知道。

我们大多数人都
对公布我们的薪水的想法感到不舒服。

我们不应该告诉我们的邻居

,我们绝对不
应该告诉我们办公室的邻居。

假定的原因是,如果每个人都
知道每个人得到了什么报酬,

那么一切都会崩溃。

会有争吵,会有争吵,

甚至可能会有几个人退出。

但是,如果保密实际上
是所有冲突的原因呢?

如果我们取消这个秘密会发生什么?

如果开放实际上增加
了公司内部的公平感和协作感

怎么办?

如果我们
的薪酬完全透明,会发生什么?

在过去的几年里,

我一直在研究

那些质疑
关于如何经营公司的传统智慧的企业和企业家领袖。

薪酬问题不断出现。

答案总是令人惊讶。

事实证明,薪酬透明度——

在公司内公开分享工资——

为员工和组织创造了一个更好的工作场所

当人们不知道他们的薪酬
与同龄人相比如何时,

他们更有可能感到薪酬过低

,甚至可能受到歧视。

你想在一个

容忍你觉得报酬过低
或受到歧视的地方工作吗?

但是,对工资保密就是
这样做的,

而且这种
做法很常见,

尽管在美国

,法律保护员工
讨论工资的权利。

在几十年前的一个著名例子中,

《名利场》杂志的管理层

实际上散发了一份备忘录,题为:

“禁止
员工讨论所获薪酬”。 员工

之间“禁止”讨论
收到的工资。

现在这份备忘录并不
适合每个人。

纽约文学人物
多萝西·帕克、

罗伯特·本奇利和罗伯特·舍伍德

都是阿尔冈昆圆桌会议的作家,他们

决定站出来维护透明度,

并在第二天上班

,他们的薪水写在脖子上的
标牌上。

(笑声)

想象一下

,你的薪水刚刚写
在你的胸前,让所有人都能看到。

但是,为什么公司甚至
要阻止工资讨论呢?

为什么有的人赞同
,有的人反对?

事实证明,
除了假设的原因之外,

薪酬保密实际上是
一种节省大量资金的方法。

你看,对工资保密

会导致经济学家所说的
“信息不对称”。

在这种情况下,
在谈判中,

一方加载的
信息比另一方多。

在招聘、晋升
或年度加薪讨论中

,雇主可以利用这种保密性
来节省很多钱。

想象一下,

如果你知道每个人的薪水,你在谈判加薪方面能做得更好。

经济学家警告说,信息不对称

会导致市场出错。

有人在复印机上留下了一张工资单

,突然间,每个人
都在互相大喊大叫。

事实上,他们甚至警告

说,信息不对称
会导致市场完全失灵。

我想我们快到了。

原因如下:

首先,大多数员工不
知道他们的薪酬与同龄人相比如何。

在 2015 年对 70,000 名员工进行的一项调查中,

三分之二的
按市场价格

领取薪酬的人表示,他们认为自己的薪酬过低。

在所有
觉得自己报酬过低的人中,

60% 的人
表示他们打算辞职,

无论他们身在何处——
报酬过低、报酬过高

或与市场价格相符。

如果你是这个调查的一部分,
你会说什么?

你工资过低吗?

好吧,等等——你怎么知道,

因为你
不被允许谈论它?

其次,信息不对称、薪酬保密,

使得人们更容易忽视当今市场

上已经存在
的歧视。

在妇女政策研究所 2011 年的一份报告中

男女之间的性别工资差距

为 23%。

这就是 77
美分美元的来源。

但在联邦政府中

,工资被固定
在一定水平

,每个人都
知道这些水平是多少

,性别工资差距
缩小到 11%

——这是在控制经济学家争论是否控制
的任何因素

之前
为了。

如果我们真的想
缩小性别工资差距,

也许我们应该
从开放工资单开始。

如果这就是
市场完全失灵的样子,

那么开放仍然
是确保公平的唯一途径。

现在,我意识到让人们
知道你所做的事情

可能会让人感到不舒服,

但它

不是比总是想
知道你是否受到歧视,

或者你的妻子、女儿
或姐姐是否得到不公平的报酬更不舒服吗?

公开仍然是
确保公平的最佳方式,

而薪酬透明则可以做到这一点。

这就是为什么企业家领导者
和企业领导者

多年来一直在
尝试分享工资。

就像戴恩·阿特金森一样。

Dane 是一位连续创业
者,他

在薪酬保密条件下创办了许多公司

,甚至利用这种条件
向两个同样合格的人支付了

截然不同的薪水,

具体取决于
他们谈判的能力。

戴恩看到
了由此而发生的冲突。

因此,当他创办
他的最新公司 SumAll 时,

他从一开始就致力于薪酬透明化

结果是惊人的。

在一次又一次的研究中,

当人们
知道他们

的报酬如何以及与同龄人相比如何时,

他们更有可能努力工作
以提高他们的表现,

更有可能参与其中
,但他们不太可能 退出。

这就是为什么戴恩并不孤单。

从像 Buffer 这样的科技初创公司,

到 Whole Foods 的数万名员工

,不仅您的薪水
可供所有人查看,

而且
商店和您部门的绩效数据

也可以在公司内联网

上供所有人使用 查看。

现在,薪酬
透明度有多种形式。

这不是一种适合所有人的尺寸。

有些人张贴他们的薪水给所有人看。

有些只保留在公司内部。

一些张贴计算工资的公式,

另一些张贴工资水平

并将每个人都贴在该水平上。

因此,您不必

为所有员工
在办公室周围佩戴标牌。

而且您不必
是唯一一个佩戴

您在家制作的标志的人。

但我们都可以朝着薪酬透明度迈出更大的步伐

对于那些

有权朝着透明度迈进的人

:是时候向前迈进了。

对于
那些没有这种权力的人来说

:是时候为自己的权利挺身而出了。

那么你得到多少报酬?

这与
你一起工作的人相比如何?

你应该知道。

他们也应该如此。

谢谢你。

(掌声)