A pay transparency case study: when a pay conversation becomes a retention risk
Becky Hewson-Haworth has worked at the heart of reward - carrying out in-house reward roles and as a specialist copywriter and reward communications consultant - for more than 20 years. She helps organisations explain pay clearly, confidently and credibly with her EU Pay Transparency Communications Toolkit.
Pay is an emotive topic. And it nearly always falls to managers to hold clear, personalised conversations that build trust and maintain equity. Yet most organisations don’t provide their managers with the knowledge, tools or support they need to do this well. With the EU Pay Transparency Directive looming large, I’m sharing this case study to show how quickly things can go wrong without pay communication support for your managers.
From pay transparency question to retention risk
My friend Harry had been concerned about their pay for some time having seen similar roles advertised with significantly higher salaries.
Needing a sounding board, they messaged me (an ex-reward professional) to ask for support. Which is how - with their permission - I’m able to share the inner workings of a pay conversation gone bad.
Here’s how it all started. On 19th January my friend Harry emailed their line manager: “Thanks for a really useful discussion in the mid-year performance review. I have a couple of questions about my pay.”
Just 10 days later the conversation had gone so badly wrong, Harry told me: “This all seems like BS. I’m starting to think more and more about leaving.”
From wanting to discuss their pay to thinking about leaving. In just 10 days.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, Harry is a strong performer with hot skills in a role with severe talent shortages.
Here’s how the pay conversation played out
Jan 19, 2026: Harry has a clear pay question
Harry emails their manager after a positive mid-year review and requests:
Additional pay for taking on additional duties for someone in a different role who left and hasn’t been replaced.
An explanation of where their current pay sits in the band and what top-of-band looks like: “What are other people in similar roles doing that I’m not? What am I expected to deliver to ensure my compensation is at the top of the grade pay band?”
Market benchmarking via HR to establish whether the grade and pay range is right.
Timelines for a response.
~Jan 26: early drift and mixed signals
Harry has to chase their manager who says they’ll speak to HR but cautions: “this level of comparative info about grade bandings and other people will not be available” due to data privacy. The manager also fails to offer the role and performance-based criteria Harry asked for.
Harry messages me: “I have no idea what he means about comparative information and grade bandings not being available. He's clearly just trying to talk me out of pursuing it. I expect him to be able to tell me what I should be delivering to meet the top of the pay grade. Or actually, what I’m not doing.”
Impact: Harry feels confused by a lack of clarity in their manager’s response and like they’re being stonewalled on criteria for top-of-band performance.
Late Jan: escalation and uncertainty
HR speaks directly to Harry but leaves them feeling confused:
HR advises benchmarking hasn’t been refreshed “for years” but indicates a “top salary” of an additional £6,000 and says pay increases are down to “merit based on performance”.
Harry to me: “Just had a chat with HR. I think it was ok but I didn't fully understand some of it to be honest (about justifying my current pay). It all seems pretty novice and unstructured.”
Feb 5: Harry receives an email from their manager
In response to:
The original question about in-role pay progression the manager talks only about career progression options.
Why Harry’s pay isn’t towards the top of the range the manager says: “Annual increases are partly merit based but also impacted by the budget issued by the organisation.” No further explanation is offered.
The manager then directs Harry to pursue market benchmarking with HR and promises to discuss an increase for additional responsibilities with HR that week.
This is a miss: still no explicit, objective criteria for top-of-band performance in the current role. Harry is being tasked with benchmarking their own role with HR who also don’t provide pay explanations Harry can understand. And the explanation about salary review impacting position in range is unclear.
Feb 6: the lack of pay clarity leaves Harry even more frustrated
Harry messages me: “Sooo frustrated with my boss not getting it or pretending not to… Answers to my questions are so frustrating… 1 ignores my current role… 2 is just BS! There's no guarantee this new role will get signed off. 😡”
Feb 7: partial resolution, unresolved core pay question
Harry receives a 5% increase backdated for added duties + 1% interim general increase backdated to January.
There’s still no satisfactory answer to “what does top-of-band require and how do I get there?”
Even with a fairly decent backdated increase, Harry tells me: “I've said I'll move on from it for now and focus on getting approval for the new role. However, if it's not approved then I'll likely have no incentive to stay.”
This is still a miss: despite a 6% pay increase, trust has been eroded and the retention risk persists for a role with hot skills and a talent shortage.
What the manager got wrong with their pay transparency response
Framing and scope
Conflated two separate topics:
Fair pay for the current role.
Potential new role/grade.
Harry repeatedly asked about current-role top-of-band criteria; the response kept pivoting to future career options.
Pay transparency and criteria
Didn’t provide role-based, objective criteria tied to the pay band to explain how pay progression could be achieved.
Failed to present the different objective criteria - like scope, complexity, impact metrics, skill standards, behaviours, and delivery thresholds - that map to mid-band vs. top-band.
Allowed delays and pushed responsibility to HR without setting clear, manager-owned timelines and outcomes (e.g., a criteria deck, benchmarking summary, clear decision with rationale).
Evidence-based pay benchmarking
Acknowledged outdated benchmarking; did not commit to a timebound refresh or interim calibration method (market sources, internal job architecture alignment).
Closing the loop in writing
No formal written answer to Harry’s core question, leaving room for interpretation and trust erosion.
How to get your managers EU Pay Transparency Directive-ready - and turn pay queries into a moment of trust and retention
This is a fairly complex pay situation with multiple issues. However, this isn’t all that unusual. During my time doing in-house reward roles, pay issues are often raised when employees reach a tipping point and suddenly need answers to more than one question.
Under EU pay transparency legislation, your managers need to be able to hold effective compensation conversations to uphold the law and boost retention into the bargain. Which means HR and Reward teams must:
Enable managers to explain pay-progression using objective criteria: this could be an objective matrix including elements like scope/impact, complexity, skills and competencies for each band level.
Share clear guidance on how to deal with common pay issues: like taking immediate action when the scope of a role changes (added duties in this case), plus clarity about how roles are evaluated and benchmarked to build confidence and trust.
Ensure managers understand the importance of providing a clear timebox and own the process: managers should set and communicate dates for providing clear pay explanations. Under the EU PTD, Right to Information requests have legal time limits for responses. Managers will also need to be able to explain pay progression clearly at key times of the year, like pay review. Or when hiring, promoting or retaining an employee.
Provide your managers with the support they need: including how pay works at your organisation and narrative and key messages for effective pay conversations that are personalised yet aligned with your pay philosophy.
Encourage compensation conversations: email leads to confusion and should mainly be used to provide written confirmation once understanding and a way forward has been established through discussion.
Communicate in plain English like this:
“Here’s the performance criteria for your role. Based on evidence X/Y/Z, you meet A/B at top-of-band, and you need C/D/E to close the gap. If C/D/E are achieved by [date], I’ll sponsor a move to £[top-of-band] within the same grade, subject to budget and approval.
Your additional duties merit a [x%] adjustment, backdated to [date]. I’ll update you by [date] on benchmarking for your salary and confirm any further correction.”
“Do you have any questions about anything we’ve covered today?”
Provide a range of communications support: think more detailed guides supported by one pagers, FAQs, talking points documents for key times of the annual reward cycle and pay query scenarios.
Ensure auditability: ensure managers record a short written decision note summarising the rationale, criteria mapping, actions taken, and next milestones to support consistency and audits.
This case study signals clear gaps in HR’s processes and manager capability. Under EU pay transparency laws your organisation can’t expect managers to hold compliant pay conversations without support.
Or you could also go from pay query to retention risk in 10 days with a legal issue on top.
Give your managers the pay transparency support they need
Find out how ready your organisation is to communicate about pay and get your EU pay transparency communications roadmap here » https://becky-7oxwnbwn.scoreapp.com