Recruitment review

It’s time to talk about money

Pete Gwilliam

Owner, Virtus Search

Ahealthy employer-employee relationship should have transparent pay grade structures, and both parties should regularly consider the value of the employee relative to others in the same salary banding. Trust that this is being done equitably and inclusively is implied, and the process should focus on what you are being asked to deliver in the future and the value you create.

The Equality Act 2010 states that men and women who perform the same work for the same employer must receive equal pay, unless any difference can be rationalised by performance and delivery of key accountabilities.

What you may not know is that the same law requires all employers with 250 or more workers to publish their gender pay gap figures each year. These can all be searched and compared using the government’s official gender pay gap service (https:// gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk).

My generation was brought up to believe talking about money was a taboo subject, but inclusivity demands transparency – and especially for women and other under-represented groups, the knowledge that they are being treated equitably surely starts with knowing how an employer ensures all are being paid fairly.

The inherent problem here, however, is that employment contracts often require that salaries be kept confidential, thus enabling a continuing disparity in wages, since a culture that prohibits people from discussing earnings is likely to be less accountable. Further compounding this tricky area is the fact that, despite such common contract requirements, it is unlawful (under the Equality Act 2010) to prevent an employee from disclosing a difference in salary if the purpose of doing so is to try to discern whether an equal-pay issue exists. Of course, if conversation is stifled on this subject, it becomes harder to identify where problems exist and to encourage healthy debate about any discrepancies within an organisation. This raises the suspicion that it is in the interests only of employers and those paid more than anyone else in their grade to continue to make salaries a confidential matter.

Not being able to talk about money removes a sense of control and allows cynicism to creep in regarding other vital matters of institutional inclusivity that may also be opaque. For example, who and why does someone gets promoted or given a special project? One survey on last year’s Equal Pay Day found only one in four workers feels strongly that their employer is transparent about pay, despite 70 per cent of those surveyed believing that pay transparency is vital to employee satisfaction.

Because employees have a legal right to discuss salaries, you should feel empowered to speak up if you notice that something is wrong, especially when it comes to issues such as bias and discrimination. I fully appreciate that the deep-seated stigma around money means talking about it is usually more easily said than done; here are a few thoughts on how to approach this.

1. Your initial discussion with your manager should focus on offering objective information. For example, you can use gender pay gap data or quote details about similar types

of roles at other organisations and their salary benchmarks (none of which is in breach of a contract that prohibits internal discussions of sensitive information), asking why your salary appears to be lagging behind. 2. Ask what might be missing in your experience or achievements and value creation that prevents your salary being reviewed. 3. Detail progression since your last formal review and talk about your plan to deliver in those areas that are important to the firm. 4. Help your employer realise that this is you being serious about your future and wanting assurance that there is a pathway to advancing financially and in a workforce that is equitably treated. 5. At all times you need to prevent your boss from feeling you are a disruptive team member who is leading discussions and gossip about reward.

The more logical your argument, the more businesslike the discussion – and such an approach has a greater professional depth to it than making the discussion only about how hard you’ve worked in the past year, or your changing personal situation (new mortgage, kids, etc).

But ultimately, you can’t allow vague promises to suffice. You should agree on a good time to revisit the issue (get a date in the diary for any follow-up), and on what specific, measurable results will be required before a pay review will be confirmed. If there are promises of any future incentives/pay agreements, get these summarised in an email, and ask for them to be recorded in your personnel file – increasing the probability that your employer will commit to following through.

If you believe you’ve made a logical, compelling case for a pay review and/or being considered for promotion, and you are not given any commitment to recognise your value now or in the future, then this should tell you everything you need to know about your next step. M I

Glass ceilings

Lee Johnson

Director, Willow Private Finance

Since the beginning of 2022 I’ve been heading up a recruitment drive in a sector whose success or failure, like that of many directly authorised firms in the UK, depends entirely on its ability to attract and retain talent. In this particular case, that talent is new mortgage brokers.

One thing that’s unique to recruitment, and that is often overlooked, is that you get to have an honest, unvarnished appraisal of the working conditions of an external brokerage. This warts-and-all discussion transcends marketing and messaging and is far superior to any other research you may wish to conduct about the market in which we trade.

Each time we came to a certain point in the interview, the broker would take a deep breath, look to the sky, and sigh. This was often followed by a tale lamenting some intolerable sacrifice made in previous weeks and months regarding the broker’s family, or telling of the death knell to their financial aspirations as the realisation of the scale of the problem dawned on them.

Irrespective of the firm, its size, its lifespan, or its target market, there was one consistent complaint across the industry that left me scratching my head. The issue, if you hadn’t guessed it already, is the ever-present balancing act between business development activities and administration of new cases.

It has occurred to me that the leadership of these brokers’ firms is not approaching this as a problem to be solved but instead as a dichotomy that will have to be managed.

Forever.

What a bleak, debilitating, and pessimistic approach to the business of being a mortgage broker.

Most brokers join a brokerage firm because they genuinely find the experience of providing financial solutions through advice and problem-solving rewarding. Building relationships and closing deals are the key tenets of a successful broker.

Sadly, with the fruits of a broker’s success comes a glass ceiling. The administration associated with the business limits a broker’s earning capacity, unless things like sleep or personal relationships are sacrificed to a level that’s unsustainable.

As a director of a firm with a number of brokers, I understand the temptation to insist that they be responsible for the whole client journey, including the administrative tasks. From a profit-and-loss perspective, retaining adequate numbers of experienced administrative staff to facilitate the freedoms the advisers desire is expensive, reduces profit margins, and carries substantial risk as payroll liabilities rise.

It’s certainly unattractive if you believe the top-line results and culture won’t be the better for it.

However, in my experience, freeing up our brokers to focus on what they love doing whilst employing experienced administrators who love doing admin has created a culture of continued growth for both the firm and everyone involved.

Brokers are free to focus on what they find most fulfilling in their roles. They create ideas and strategies to do more of what they enjoy professionally. They have the freedom to explore channels for increasing their desk that would not otherwise have been available because they would not have been allowed the creative capacity to consider it.

The net effect is that everyone wins. They are happier because they earn more and learn more within a work-life balance that ensures that external responsibilities are not usurped.

The P&L wins because the gap created by removing administrative demands is filled with business development and, eventually, more cases.

The business wins as everyone moves forward together in a culture of creativity and productivity.

While I am sure that there are some out there who may view this sort of thing as a gamble they’re not willing to take, I, for one, will be continuing to place this bet on our team. M I