Ina Louise L. Nicolas
Divine Word College of Laoag, Graduate School
Abstract
The article discusses the pay-quality imbalance,
whereby employees' compensation does not match the quality or value of work
they contribute. It analyzes the impact of incongruence between pay and
performance on organizational efficiency, employee motivation, and retention.
Among the causes underlined in the analysis, one could name such as outdated
pay structures, misalignment with market trends, and subjective techniques of
performance evaluation. The article goes on to elaborate on the far-reaching implications
for company culture and competitiveness while proposing ways for bringing about
a balanced compensation system that would equitably reward the quality of
contribution, thereby ensuring long-term business outcomes.
Keywords:
Pay-quality imbalance; Compensation; Work quality; Organizational
efficiency; Employee motivation; Retention; Company culture; Equitable rewards;
Long-term business outcomes
Introduction
In today's competitive talent environment, many
companies face the challenge of pay-quality imbalance, wherein pay is not
well-matched with the quality of hires. This phenomenon may be seen as an issue
where pay does not reflect skills, performance, or contribution fairly,
especially within high-bar recruitment strategies aimed at selecting elite
talent. This disconnect may have many consequences, including morale issues and
retention risks, which pose ethical dilemmas in terms of general fairness and equity.
For instance, the underpayment of high performers compared to their colleagues
and/or market standards might raise concerns of inequity and injustice, and the
potential for these employees to leave the organization. This is in addition to
the possible introduction and perpetuation of gender and/or racial imbalances
in payment and their association and relationship to societal imbalances. The
challenges in this area and its solutions require an understanding of the ethical
frameworks, including principles of distributive justice and stakeholder theory, to guarantee that the organization attracts and retains employees as well as
practices what is considered moral in the increasingly monitored business
environment.
Addressing these issues delves deeply into the ethical
challenges posed by pay-quality imbalances in recruitment and compensation
practices, where compensation often fails to adequately reflect employee
skills, performance, and contributions. By analyzing this disconnect, particularly
in high-stakes, competitive talent markets, the paper aims to highlight the
broader implications for organizational fairness, equity, and sustainability.
Pay-Quality
Imbalance
Pay-quality imbalance is caused by many factors.
Often, budgetary constraints restrict the degree to which organizations can
compensate high performers selected through tough merit-based standards,
causing raises or offers to be spread thin across employees. This dilutes
incentives, perhaps not attracting or retaining the best talent. According to the Indeed Editorial Team (2025), offering merit-based pay can help a company
attract confident talent, and when employees know there are financial rewards
for quality work, they are more likely to self-motivate. Subjective evaluations
of performance and biases further exacerbate this issue, causing variable pay
practices wherein in-group favoritism or stereotypes undervalue high-quality
candidates from underrepresented groups. Moreover, some schemes link remuneration
packages to perceived potential, not actual achievement, leading to discord
between actual quality and reward received.
Pay-quality imbalance has extensive ethical
repercussions. Being underpaid compared to high-quality hires may be seen as
exploitative and will result in dissatisfaction, reduced engagement, and
increased turnover. On the other hand, overpayment due to social factors or
biased decisions with less-qualified employees undermines organizational
fairness and creates resentment. This imbalance not only diminishes workforce
morale but can also damage a company's reputation and culture. Employees who
feel undervalued and unfairly compensated are more likely to experience low
morale, decreased productivity, and a lack of loyalty toward the organization to
Abhishek Gill (2023). It obstructs the goal of meritocratic recruitment and pay
structures by fostering inequity rather than true reward for skill and
contribution.
Where pay needs to be balanced against quality,
transparent and objective compensation models are the requirement. Common pay
scales grounded on quantifiable competencies and performance can better align
pay with employee quality. Frequent pay audits and bias training support equity
and minimize discriminatory gaps. Employers should utilize a clear and transparent pay system that is
based on objective criteria, and compensation should be reviewed regularly to
ensure that it is fair and equitable (The Team at Working IDEAL, 2024). Hybrid
models linking individual merit to team or enterprise-level outcomes provide
another way to achieve distributive equity while maintaining motivation. More
than ever, leaders have a responsibility to set ethical frameworks that drive
fairness with excellence in a manner that creates trust, engagement, and
long-term success.
Conclusion
Pay-quality imbalance points to the deep-seated
ethical and practical difficulties that corporations have in relating
compensation to talent quality, even when their bars for recruiting are high.
How to bridge this gap by embracing open, fair, and non-discriminatory
compensatory policies is where meritocratic culture, inclusion, and retention
or attraction of the best talents come in. By focusing on fair pay aligned with
demonstrated contribution, organizations can enhance morale, performance, and
their ethical standing in the workforce.
To achieve this, it is imperative for organizations to ensure a transparent compensation package, where salaries are linked to a performance index. To eliminate disparities in the compensation review process, organizations should invest in compensation audits. Organizations that lead this charge will not only attract top global talent but also build resilient, innovative teams that drive sustainable success in an increasingly competitive landscape.
References:
Abhisbek G. (2023). The Ethical Dilemma of Hiring
People with Lower Salaries:
A Comparison of Company Compensation and Exploitation of Candidates. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethical-dilemma-hiring-people-lower-salaries-comparison-abhishek-gill
Kulal, A. (March 2020). Ethical Issues in Recruitment,
Selection, and its Impact on
Job Satisfaction Study with Reference to the Permanent Teachers of Government First Grade Colleges in Dakshina Kannada District. Deeksha-Bi-Annual Peer Reviewed Journal of Social Work, Volume-18, November-I, 12-17. ssrn_id3841503_code2740112.pdf
Hina Chauhan et. al. (2025). Ethical Issues in HRM –
Balancing Organizational
Goals with Employee Rights. Quest Journals Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science Volume 13 ~ Issue 3 (2025) pp: 116-121. https://www.questjournals.org/jrhss/papers/vol13-issue3/1303116121.pdf
Indeed Editorial Team (2025) Merit Pay: Definition,
Advantages and Disadvantages.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/merit-pay
Hi Bob, Inc. (2025). What is a merit increase and how
does it work?
https://www.hibob.com/hr-glossary/merit-increase/
Alexandra Hennessy et.
al. (2024) Merit recruitment, professional advancement
opportunitie,s and prosocial rule-breaking among public servants in Greece. Socio-Economic Review, Volume 23, Issue 3, July 2025, Pages 1361–1382. https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/23/3/1361/7769692
Debbie Edokpolo, MSW. (2025) Rethinking Hiring: What
the Return to Merit Means
for Employers (Organizations). https://www.rvphtc.org/2025/05/22/rethinking-hiring-what-the-return-to-merit-means-for-employers-organizations/
Varnit Singhal et.al. (2025) Meritocracy in Hiring:
Combating Corruption and
Fostering Ethical Workforce Practices
The Team at Working IDEAL
(2024) Rethinking “Merit” Increases: How Pay for
Performance
Can Perpetuate Bias and Fail to Reward Merit. Pay
Equity. https://www.workingideal.com/rethinking-merit-increases-how-pay-for-performance-can-perpetuate-bias-and-fail-to-reward-merit/
No comments:
Post a Comment