Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours dept.

Detective_Thorn writes:

"In a recent study published by the Academy of Management Journal, Prof. Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University's Recanati School of Business and Dr. Elena Belogolovsky of Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations have published a study that explains why pay secrecy is likely to hurt an individual's work performance and prompt top talent to seek new employment. They conclude that pay secrecy weakens the perception by employees that a performance improvement will be accompanied by a pay increase. It also finds that high-performing workers are more sensitive than others when they perceive no link between performance and pay; suggesting that pay secrecy could limit a company's ability to retain top talent."

So who, if anybody, benefits from pay secrecy?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:38PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday March 06 2014, @09:38PM (#12229)

    However in today's corporate culture, a person's salary has little to do with their actual value to the company.

    Maybe making salaries open would cause companies to assign salaries in relation to value, instead of simply trying to squeeze employees as hard as they can.

    Perhaps an issue is that some companies feel that no employee should make more money than their immediate manager, so management keeps things obfuscated to protected themselves? I once worked for a company that forced all of its top-tier developers into management positions; and if they refused, forced them out of the company. It made no sense to me except that the VP of IT was once a developer and rose up through the management ranks, and he expected every other developer to feel the same way.

    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mrbluze on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:11PM

    by mrbluze (49) on Thursday March 06 2014, @10:11PM (#12249) Journal

    In Mondragon (see wikipedia), the employees of the company vote on the wage conditions of the entire company, including the CEO, who the employees elect. Everybody knows how much everybody earns. It's a very successful organization.

    Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
    • (Score: 1) by cykros on Friday March 07 2014, @05:30AM

      by cykros (989) on Friday March 07 2014, @05:30AM (#12503)

      Sounds like something resembling a co-op. Sure, they can be successful, even wildly so. They're also not particularly attractive to investors, perhaps because they tend to view investors as a steaming pile of turd (which is mostly a fair assessment anyway).

      Of course, acting like skilled labor is more important to companies than people with no involvement with a company outside of ownership of some shares is downright un-American, so i wouldn't worry about suddenly efficient organizations rising up to follow their lead anytime soon.

      • (Score: 1) by monster on Friday March 07 2014, @10:35AM

        by monster (1260) on Friday March 07 2014, @10:35AM (#12586) Journal

        Yes, it is a co-op.

        Pay secrecy benefits only the employer, because it can then have different pays for the same job, with some earning much less than what would ask for if pay information was public. Think of it like the inverse of airlines' price segmentation.