The Trust Gap: Why Pay Transparency Alone Doesn’t Build Fairness (And What Does)

It’s hard to escape the topic of pay transparency at the moment. Not only is it fast becoming a compliance requirement in some geographies, (we’re looking at you, EU Pay Directive) but transparency is also a workforce expectation. Your employees want the reassurance that they’re receiving fair pay for the job that they do — but more than that, they want to know how their compensation relates to their colleagues, their superiors, and people in comparable roles elsewhere. 

Sharing pay information sends a clear signal: you have nothing to hide. But don’t mistake transparency for fairness. Revealing your most intimate comp data won’t necessarily make employees trust you or your processes any more.

Look no further than the story of Pimlico Plumbers as an example. Back in 2012, company boss Charlie Mullins agreed to take part in “Show Me Your Money,” a reality TV show. The premise involved colleagues revealing their salaries to each other, with some surprising results, including pay differences of up to £9,000. One employee expressed, “I was surprised by discrepancies between staff doing similar jobs, with similar skills.” Another quit the company once they learned how their pay compared to others. 

The lessons learned from the Pimlico Plumbers experiment still hold true today. Trust collapses fast when employers share pay data without a clear and defensible process behind it. To support you in building yours, this guide unpacks what the “trust gap” can look like inside modern organisations, and practical ways to close it.

What is the pay transparency trust gap? 

The pay transparency trust gap describes the distance between what employees can see and what they believe. A company can publish every salary range or even individual compensation data, but they’ll still face doubt if people don’t believe those numbers come from a fair or consistent process.

Instead of feeling reassured, employees see room for bias and start second-guessing every decision, including:

• Why someone earns more
• Why their raise was higher
• Why the ranges are so wide

Doubt spreads quickly in low-trust organisations, damaging confidence in leadership and the very systems that were created to protect fairness. The fallout won’t surprise you: think disengagement, low morale, and eventually, turnover.

According to the latest Edelman’s Trust at Work Special Report, employees gave their employers a global trust score of just 58 out of 100, which is hardly the foundation needed for open conversations about pay. Brightmine’s Attitudes on Pay Transparency and Equity study found similar signs of scepticism. When asked what would make them trust management more, employees named four concrete actions: 

• Giving a detailed breakdown of how salaries are determined (52%)
• Including ranges in every job posting (49%)
• Disclosing ranges for all internal positions (39%)
• Sharing how pay compares across the industry (38%). 

3 common trust eroders in pay (and how to overcome them) 

The appetite for transparency is obvious, but meeting it doesn’t guarantee belief. Even well-meaning organisations that publish pay ranges can still face scepticism if the system beneath them feels inconsistent. Here are three common ways trust breaks down once pay becomes public, and what to do about each.

1. Publishing pay before it’s actually fair

The drive to “be transparent” often comes from a mix of good intentions and external pressure. New regulations are looming and both candidates and employees expect salary clarity. It’s only natural that HR teams feel they can’t wait any longer to prove they’re on the right side of fairness.

But transparency on a deadline is dangerous. When companies publish pay data before testing it, they hand the world a gigantic magnifying glass. Within hours, people can spot unjustifiable discrepancies and any hint of trust in your pay decisions goes out the window. 

Pro tip: Start with a readiness check before you share anything.

• Run the numbers internally first: If you find pay equity gaps you can’t explain, fix them before you go public.
• Rebuild your job architecture: Make sure every role has a defined level, market benchmark, and salary range that matches current data.
• Write your story: Draft a short explainer, which can be as simple as one paragraph on how you set and review pay. If you can’t describe your processes clearly, why would your employees trust them? 
• Rehearse the tough questions: Sit your exec team and managers down and role-play the likely challenges: “Why is this role paid more than that one?” or “Why am I not at the midpoint?” 

2. Failing to calibrate performance reviews 

Performance ratings are the backbone of most pay decisions. The problem is companies assume their performance review process works well until transparency puts it to the test. Two people in the same role produce similar results, yet one receives a lower merit increase than the other — not because their performance differs, but because one of the employees’ managers is more generous than the other. When the employees compare notes, the lower-rated (and lower-paid) worker is right to feel hard done by. 

This is where performance review calibration earns its keep. Calibration brings managers together before pay decisions are finalised to test whether performance ratings make sense across teams. It exposes the generous raters, the harsh ones, and the inconsistencies that can distort compensation. Without this step, pay outcomes depend more on who your manager is than what you achieve.

Pro tip: Calibrate before you compensate.

• Make calibration mandatory: Don’t approve pay changes until you’ve reviewed and aligned your ratings across teams.
• Anchor ratings in evidence: Use clear performance examples and shared criteria to make sure everyone applies the same standards.
• Audit outcomes: Check for rating trends that consistently skew high or low by manager or department, and address them before pay reviews go live.
• Equip leaders for transparency: Train managers to explain how ratings link to pay in plain, data-backed terms.

3. Having exceptions that undermine your system 

In a transparent pay framework, any exceptions to your rules threaten to demolish your credibility. Counter-offers, off-cycle raises, and “we had to stretch for this candidate” adjustments all scream that the rules apply … until they don’t. 

Pay exceptions don’t usually stem from carelessness. They come from real pressures, like a top performer threatening to leave or market data moving faster than your last salary review. But every time you bend the rules for one person, you make the system less believable for everyone else. And once employees think there’s a workaround, transparency stops meaning anything at all, to anyone. 

Pro tip: Protect consistency at all costs.

• Plan for edge cases: Build flexibility into your pay structure instead of adding it after the fact. For example, create a small “market adjustment” buffer within each salary band so managers can respond to competitive offers without breaking the model.
• Document every deviation: If you do make an exception, record why it happened, who approved it, and what you’ll do to bring that pay back into alignment. Visibility stops one-off decisions from becoming habits.
• Close the loop: Review all exceptions quarterly. If the same pressure points keep cropping up, like a band that’s too tight or a role that’s consistently under-market, the issue is likely the design itself. 

Bridge the pay transparency trust gap with Figures 

Transparency is only ever as strong as the systems behind it. When your data is clean, your processes are consistent, and your managers are aligned, openness builds confidence. But when any of those pieces are missing, transparency simply exposes your faults.

What the trust gap really boils down to is integrity. Employees don’t just want to see fairness; they want to believe in how it’s made. Figures helps companies build the perfect foundation for fair and transparent pay. Our compensation management platform brings together: 

• Real-time market benchmarking
• Automated salary bands
• Compensation review workflows that keep decisions consistent and explainable 

Book a free Figures demo to see our platform in action.